Keep Megaupload out of our server seizure case, US lawyers say

When the US government shut down file-sharing site Megaupload, it also grabbed the service's US-based servers, located at Carpathia Hosting and other companies. That inspired legal demands from Kyle Goodwin, an Ohio man who makes his living videotaping high school sports events, and wants his files back. But the government shot back with a brief suggesting that Goodwin wasn't exactly "innocent," since he'd also uploaded allegedly pirated music files to his account.

Now Mega wants to intervene in the dispute between the government and Kyle Goodwin—and government lawyers want to keep Megaupload well out of it. In a brief filed yesterday, prosecutors say that while it's fine for someone from Megaupload to be a witness in Goodwin's case, the service absolutely should not be allowed in as a party to the case.

In this new brief, the government accuses Megaupload of trying to use Goodwin's case as a way to battle over its own criminal case—while it actually delays that case from moving forward.

"Megaupload seeks to intervene in this civil dispute, where it lacks standing, to pre-litigate the pending criminal case, where it has not appeared," write government lawyers in their brief. "Here, Megaupload seeks to circumvent numerous procedural rules, as well as basic legal principles, by selectively appearing as a party in one civil proceeding that parallels the criminal prosecution, while seeking to stay all others."

Megaupload chief Kim Dotcom and his lawyers got very interested in Goodwin's case, after it led to documents being unsealed, which they believe aid their case greatly. Getting involved as a party in Goodwin's case would allow Megaupload's lawyers to better attack the warrants that resulted in criminal action.

The US is still trying to get Dotcom extradited from New Zealand—so far without success. Meanwhile, Dotcom has launched a new service called Mega; it was unveiled at a splashy party last month at the Dotcom Mansion.

Joe Mullin / Joe has covered the intersection of law and technology, including the world's biggest copyright and patent battles, since 2007.

I'm curious what evidence they have or think they have that the music is pirated. He could have ripped his mp3's himself. Or perhaps like me he's deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan and legally purchased copied media which customs allows you to bring back with you as long as you have only one copy of each.

Chances are he just has music in his account. They would automatically assume its stolen because "ripping is not fair use" according to them. What they really need to be looking for though is server logs detailing how he distributed the music to others.

As for MU's involvement. Why is the government worried about policy and procedures now? They seemingly haven't followed any themselves in this case. Why start now?

But the government shot back with a brief suggesting that Goodwin wasn't exactly "innocent," since he'd also uploaded allegedly pirated music files to his account.

Then why don't they restore his files and subsequently sue him for copyright infringement?

ExactlyThe government seized some legal files and refused to give it back. Whether Goodwin has pirated files is irrelevant to this case in question. Even a 12 years old can understand the flaw in logic.

I'm curious what evidence they have or think they have that the music is pirated. He could have ripped his mp3's himself. Or perhaps like me he's deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan and legally purchased copied media which customs allows you to bring back with you as long as you have only one copy of each.

I'm guessing the meta data of his MP3s match what they have on file as coming from "pirated sources".

Whichever way, my bet is on the US govt. pulling something sleazy in the next few days... what, I dont know,but I'm willing to put good coin that it will be underhanded and sleazy.

I'm curious what evidence they have or think they have that the music is pirated. He could have ripped his mp3's himself. Or perhaps like me he's deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan and legally purchased copied media which customs allows you to bring back with you as long as you have only one copy of each.

I'm guessing the meta data of his MP3s match what they have on file as coming from "pirated sources".

Whichever way, my bet is on the US govt. pulling something sleazy in the next few days... what, I dont know,but I'm willing to put good coin that it will be underhanded and sleazy.

Bringing up the music files when they are irrelevant to the case was already sleazy, really. The issue isn't really Goodwin's overall use of Megaupload, it's that legitimate files were seized with no due process or recourse for the owner. It's a blatant attempt to circumvent the actual question of law at stake through an attempt at character assassination. Which is stupid: if the government just produced the files being sued over there wouldn't even be grounds for a case.

I am continually amazed at how little respect is afforded to copyright and how celebrated a person like Dotcom is on these boards. The man furnished a site for pirated materials. That he resides in a country that is lax on that shouldn't affect public opinion. Ars has established a track record of supporting and sensationalizing people like Dotcom and the Pirate Bay people through fluff stories and apparently the audience agrees.

What fresh bullshit is this? Find me one article from Ars that sensationalizes Dotcom or the Pirate Bay.

I am continually amazed at how little respect is afforded to copyright and how celebrated a person like Dotcom is on these boards. The man furnished a site for pirated materials. That he resides in a country that is lax on that shouldn't affect public opinion. Ars has established a track record of supporting and sensationalizing people like Dotcom and the Pirate Bay people through fluff stories and apparently the audience agrees.

Show where they've sensationalized Dotcom?

They support him because the legal maneuvers are bullshit. While they are apparently legal to the letter, they are outside the spirit of the law.

Also, copyright is afforded a perfect amount of support. It's bullshit like the DCMA that are under fire. $9,000 a song? Takedowns issued on baby videos? This shows that the copyright holders in question direly need to be reined in.

LiquidSolstice wrote:

Welcome to Ars.

Piracy is a good thing dude. It leads to exposure and success. Unless a company goes bankrupt because of it, then said company is just greedy, lying, and scapegoating piracy.

Blah, blah. Name a company that's both heavily involved in the copyright assaults on American rights, and is _losing_ money. Or even showing smaller profits then in previous years.

I am continually amazed at how little respect is afforded to copyright and how celebrated a person like Dotcom is on these boards. The man furnished a site for pirated materials. That he resides in a country that is lax on that shouldn't affect public opinion. Ars has established a track record of supporting and sensationalizing people like Dotcom and the Pirate Bay people through fluff stories and apparently the audience agrees.

What fresh bullshit is this? Find me one article from Ars that sensationalizes Dotcom or the Pirate Bay.

You'll find tons of those articles littered with pro-Dotcom and anti-US quips (although some are very subtle), and you'll be hard pressed to find a single commentator (except perhaps me) who does not whole heartedley believe that Dotcom deserves sympathy in his David v Goliath battle.

No other tech news site (except Tech-Dirt, but that's because Masnick has an unhealthy obsession with copyright law) has covered Dotcom nearly as much as Ars.

It's quite simple, if you don't agree with Dotcom/TPB/Anonymous, on Ars you are branded as a MAFIAA/government stooge who thinks copyright is amazing and that you are too stupid to discuss anything to with any those people, organizations.

Also, if you don't hate Apple here, you are considered a fanboy. If you don't think Samsung was completely in the right during their trial, you were too stupid to "open your eyes".

I apologize on behalf of Ars; if you stay away from topics pertaining to Apple/Samsung/copyright, you'll find it's an enjoyable place. Otherwise, you'll be faced with nothing but one-sided brazen hostility from people who are incredibly quick to judge you.

I don't agree with Dotcom, or TPB, and I'm not branded as anything.

And I asked for ONE article that sensationalizes Dotcom or TPB. You did not find that. The burden of proof is on you.

There are some of us who think Dotcom was knowingly breaking the law and making money off it, don't agree with it, and consider it a Bad Thing.

However the US Govt's actions are far worse and if anything warrant Dotcom walking away free simply as precedent and to make future prosecutors & poliricians think twice about abusing the system.

For society it's far worse to have the world's most powerful govt pursuing someone with such outright aggression and blatant disregard for the rule of law. The fact that the US Govt is committing their resources on behalf of donors, while at the same time ignoring much bigger crimes committed by other donors. Bribe politicians = immunity. Enemy of the donors = prepare to be destroyed no matter what.

It doesn't matter whether Dotcom is innocent or guilty right now. What matters is justice, due process, the presumption of innocence, and eliminating bribery & corruption.

But the government shot back with a brief suggesting that Goodwin wasn't exactly "innocent," since he'd also uploaded allegedly pirated music files to his account.

Then why don't they restore his files and subsequently sue him for copyright infringement?

Supposedly that could cost tens of thousands of dollars and require weeks of engineering work. I don't buy their "allegedly" pirated music claim... how could they possibly know that?

You can't just turn one server on, you have to turn all of them on and connect them all properly before you can even find out where the guys files are. And turning on a massive cluster of servers, with a completely custom software setup is a challenge when the guys who know how it works lost their job months ago.

Even just shipping all of the servers from their current storage location into a dataccenter that has enough power and ethernet ports would be expensive...

Basically it would be cheaper and easier to just hand the guy a few hundred thousand bucks.

It certainly isn't surprising to get downvoted on my initial post. Point out the obvious bias of the community and that is what you get after all. I have been reading Ars for more than a decade but only now feel like I needed to comment. Dotcom takes a crap and Ars is there. At one point, the week Mega was launched, I swear four of the articles on the main page were about Dotcom, and not a single one critical. Forget the fact that he knowingly dealt in pirated material and gloated about it. People are more interested in the Ebul Government.

Maybe at 35 and having worked in a field that was damaged by piracy, I have a greater respect for the law. That people can claim the prosecutors are overreaching or dirty due to their tactics are ignoring the fact that Dotcom is only being protected by international law loopholes and conflicts. He has millions of dollars and gold plated lawyers. He will get off. But he is still guilty and nobody's Robin Hood.

I'd bet a large portion of Ars forum goers are older than you, and have been active participants of Ars longer than you, so I don't think you can go all "old man internet" on everyone.

Just because Dotcom broke some US laws, does not give the US carte blanche to break other laws to get him. Two wrongs do not make a right. I'd bet you that this is the opinion of the vast number of Ars participants. That you choose to see this as glorification of Dotcom and piracy is completely your problem.

It certainly isn't surprising to get downvoted on my initial post. Point out the obvious bias of the community and that is what you get after all. I have been reading Ars for more than a decade but only now feel like I needed to comment. Dotcom takes a crap and Ars is there. At one point, the week Mega was launched, I swear four of the articles on the main page were about Dotcom, and not a single one critical. Forget the fact that he knowingly dealt in pirated material and gloated about it. People are more interested in the Ebul Government.

Maybe at 35 and having worked in a field that was damaged by piracy, I have a greater respect for the law. That people can claim the prosecutors are overreaching or dirty due to their tactics are ignoring the fact that Dotcom is only being protected by international law loopholes and conflicts. He has millions of dollars and gold plated lawyers. He will get off. But he is still guilty and nobody's Robin Hood.

From the title to the content, pro-Dotcom all the way while attempting to villify the governments position at every turn.

I remember that near the time of his indictment there was a report regarding piracy in file-locker sites which clearly demonstrated that Megaupload wasn't the worst offender, in fact it had some pretty slick measures in place. Imagine if Youtube had been the target. Most of Youtube's fancier methods of identifying pirated content are recent (adding that 'buy' button for mp3s). But Google are the good guys, so I doubt there would be anyone trying to crucify them for playing within the law. If sites should be held accountable for user content, where is the litigation against Pastebin??

Whichever way, my bet is on the US govt. pulling something sleazy in the next few days... what, I dont know,but I'm willing to put good coin that it will be underhanded and sleazy.

Wow, you gamble like a crazy dude. Are you putting down money on a sunrise while you're at it?

"The U.S.accused Megaupload of generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds from the exchange of pirated film, music, book and software files when it shut the site last year. "and the US knows this for a fact. What, did they have an inside track on Dotcoms accounting. Let me guess, these have to be the same US guys that claimed Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and still believe so. After all the lying and b^llshit that comes from the USA gov. departments to justify their underhandedness, their in the bottom of my list for believability. I think the Chinese are more believable vs the USA, that says alot. Kind of hoping the US proves me wrong,but I doubt it.

""In this new brief, the government accuses Megaupload of trying to use Goodwin's case as a way to battle over its own criminal case—while it actually delays that case from moving forward.""

Megaupload is not delaying the case where extradition is concerned. The delay being caused to the extradition is by the US and the very same one that it blaming Megaupload for the delay in extradition when it is their very own actions (US) that is causing the delay in extradition itself by repeatedly appealing every NZ court ruling.

If the US had such a case against Megaupload then why oh why are the US refusing to comply with the NZ court ruling of giving fuller evidence of its case against Megaupload before the extradition hearing. Surely if they had a case they would comply and handed over the evidence as quickly as possible so that the extradition hearing can take place. After all if the evidence proves that the US has a case then Dotcom would by extradited. By not complying shows either the US has no evidence to prove their case against Dotcom for extradition to occur or they don't want Dotcom extradited and all this delaying of the US in appealing every NZ court ruling is just a smoke screen to further the delay in keeping all assets and money frozen to starve Dotcom from being able to pay for lawyers so in the end he will give up.

Mind you Dotcom did arrange a deal with the US that he will drop the case against unlawful due process that the US has done and if they release some money for him so that he can pay for lawyers and allow to have a fair trial then he will waive extradition and will come to the US voluntary. The US government refused the deal. Surely if the US had a case against Megaupload then they would have accepted the deal if they wanted Dotcom. The US refused Dotcom's deal and they are delaying the extradition themselves by appealing every NZ court ruling that goes in favour of Dotcom. Seems that the US doesn't want Dotcom extradited or face trial after all judging by their actions in not complying with the NZ court rulings.

It certainly isn't surprising to get downvoted on my initial post. Point out the obvious bias of the community and that is what you get after all. I have been reading Ars for more than a decade but only now feel like I needed to comment. Dotcom takes a crap and Ars is there. At one point, the week Mega was launched, I swear four of the articles on the main page were about Dotcom, and not a single one critical. Forget the fact that he knowingly dealt in pirated material and gloated about it. People are more interested in the Ebul Government.

Maybe at 35 and having worked in a field that was damaged by piracy, I have a greater respect for the law. That people can claim the prosecutors are overreaching or dirty due to their tactics are ignoring the fact that Dotcom is only being protected by international law loopholes and conflicts. He has millions of dollars and gold plated lawyers. He will get off. But he is still guilty and nobody's Robin Hood.

From the title to the content, pro-Dotcom all the way while attempting to villify the governments position at every turn.

I cannot tell you how livid I am with you and your post.

I am 33, I quit my job and worked for 8 months straight to follow my passion and make a video game.

I put it up on Android and iOS, and within minutes it was on pirate servers, and any search for my game (Piggies Strike Back, if you must know) on the first day way ONLY links to pirate sites even though it was already on google play and the legit version wasn't even on the first page.

I had a baby the week after I launched my game. To date, my game has not even recouped the losses from just hosting a website for it, let alone the costs to make it, or EVEN the cost of the engine (corona) I used to make it. So go cry yourself a river.

Mind you, I detest what the government is doing. I don't support pirating, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY.

I repeat, this is NOT THE WAY. What our government is doing is shameful. What our government is doing to dotcom is SHAMEFUL, and must be stopped at all costs. Who cares about DotCom and whatever he did. Please, do you actually believe that any of the "illegal" content hosted would have ever been purchased?

As someone who probably has had his game downloaded more times illegally than legally (that's pretty easy considering my numbers), I don't for a single split second believe that if the pirate sites didn't exist that I would have gotten more downloads. Why? Because I'm not stupid. I understand economics, and I know that our government is getting WAY out of control because of **AA lobbyists.

When a company fails, it is because it didn't provide a compelling product and a compelling price that people are willing to pay. THAT IS IT. That's all there is to it. That's all there has EVER been to it.

My game didn't fail because of the pirates. It failed because I didn't market it, it failed because maybe my price was too high, it failed because I had a baby and didn't have enough time to give it the love and nurturing it needed. It didn't fail because it was free on a bunch of pirate sites.

And as someone who has had experience with this first hand. I have to say STFU.

It certainly isn't surprising to get downvoted on my initial post. Point out the obvious bias of the community and that is what you get after all. I have been reading Ars for more than a decade but only now feel like I needed to comment. Dotcom takes a crap and Ars is there. At one point, the week Mega was launched, I swear four of the articles on the main page were about Dotcom, and not a single one critical. Forget the fact that he knowingly dealt in pirated material and gloated about it. People are more interested in the Ebul Government.

Maybe at 35 and having worked in a field that was damaged by piracy, I have a greater respect for the law. That people can claim the prosecutors are overreaching or dirty due to their tactics are ignoring the fact that Dotcom is only being protected by international law loopholes and conflicts. He has millions of dollars and gold plated lawyers. He will get off. But he is still guilty and nobody's Robin Hood.

I'd bet a large portion of Ars forum goers are older than you, and have been active participants of Ars longer than you, so I don't think you can go all "old man internet" on everyone.

Just because Dotcom broke some US laws, does not give the US carte blanche to break other laws to get him. Two wrongs do not make a right. I'd bet you that this is the opinion of the vast number of Ars participants. That you choose to see this as glorification of Dotcom and piracy is completely your problem.

What is even worse about this case is whether the US has any legal standing to bring charges. If there were crimes committed as alleged they did not occur in the US but in New Zealand where Dotcom lives. Thus only New Zealand can charge him and only if he broke New Zealand laws. US laws are irrelevant in this case. The US DOJ whole case is not based on where the alleged crimes took place but on the physical location of some servers which were leased by Megaupload. This theory has if held valid has some very troubling implications for everyone because where the server is located could make you a criminal in another country when you did not commit a crime in your own. I have no idea where the Ars' servers are. And under the outlined theory one could be committing a crime in France (random location) while posting a comment from Brazil without ever stepping foot on any French soil in your entire life. You can substitute any two countries but the point is the same.

There was an eminent English jurist who said (paraphrasing) that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person is convicted. It seems the US DOJ tactics are not about justice but about getting a scalp.

Dotcom's possible guilt is not as important as the rule of law and that he and co-defendants get a fair trail in the proper venue. This is what is bothersome to me about the whole affair is it smells like a kangaroo court with elements of a lynching by the US DOJ. If the US DOJ can trample the rights of someone like Dotcom who has money with apparent impunity what about the rest of us who lack the resources who live the US?

Seems that the US doesn't want Dotcom extradited or face trial after all judging by their actions in not complying with the NZ court rulings.

They obviously have no interest in having this end. I am guessing, but I they like the press coverage because it looks like they are working hard to lobbyists, the lobbyists that help fund the government idiots.. judges, the President and so on. Like you said, he offered to come here if he could have money to pay for a defense, they had their chance and didn't take it so their case (evidence) must be pretty poor.

He also pulled files per DMCA (which he didn't have to because he didn't conduct business in the US) and let major studios delete the links to files themselves which as far as I am aware no other file locker does.

People who argue about how he was wronged by the law are universally retards who are buying into Dotcom's propaganda. He has attempted to bribe politicians, goodness knows if he has bribed other people, he has fought his extradition, he has enlisted expensive legal help, he has worked hard to spread propaganda, he has had the unwavering support of the pro-piracy community and a number of retard websites like Ars whose goal is to throw red meat to their masses like Fox News does to people who hate liberals... the list goes on.

Seriously, the guy is clearly guilty of criminal copyright infringement. He was clearly and deliberately building a business out of piracy. He knew he was doing it, he had specific knowledge of pirated content, he paid pirates to upload pirated content...

Frankly, if you can't utterly destroy someone like Kim Dotcom, then the copyright system is worthless because it is impossible to actually enforce your copyright. The guy is a criminal. The evidence against him is overwhelming in the forms of emails and internal communications, as well as their internal search engine and his revenue stream. Other companies knew he was being shady. The list goes on.

If you can't convict him, then you're just screwed.

In Western law you are innocent until proven guilty. Your comment about guilty is clearly despicable because you have judged him guilty and not allowed him any possibility of defending himself.

I have no idea if Dotcom is guilty and I am content to let proper judicial proceedings provide the answer; proceedings that follow due process and the rule of law. My emphasis on the rule of law and due process. My opinion and your opinion about his guilt or innocence are not important. Note the burden of proof in a US criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; a standard I have no idea if the US DOJ can meet.

The US DOJ to some extent has been using the media to try Dotcom by implying their evidence is extremely solid overlooking the problem of proper venue (US of NZ) or possibility they have damaged Dotcom's chances for a fair trail.

Truthfully I do not care if Dotcom is guilty or innocent. What I care about is the appearance of an out of control US DOJ and the possibility of serious, maybe criminal, misconduct within.

People who argue about how he was wronged by the law are universally retards who are buying into Dotcom's propaganda. He has attempted to bribe politicians, goodness knows if he has bribed other people, he has fought his extradition, he has enlisted expensive legal help, he has worked hard to spread propaganda, he has had the unwavering support of the pro-piracy community and a number of retard websites like Ars whose goal is to throw red meat to their masses like Fox News does to people who hate liberals... the list goes on.

No, the human garbage are the DOJ scumbags who decided to ignore due process, ignore the fact that US law is NOT applicable in NZ and seized a bunch of innocent people's files with no way for them to recover them, and did all this because some rich bleepards at the MPAA and RIAA and their corrupt and paid for Senators and Representatives told them to.

It's hilarious to me that you whine about him bribing NZ politicians when the MPAA and RIAA are the biggest bribers in the WORLD. Yeah, they call it 'campaign contributions', but you'd have to be a 'universal retard' (your words) to think it is anything other than absolute bribery and corruption.

And frankly the DOJs actions are indefensible. Their actions are like cops breaking down the front door of a bank involved in fraud and then deciding to burn the whole bank to the ground regardless of the fact that there are plenty of innocent customers accounts inside.

I have no real sympathy for Dotcom, but I DO have sympathy for the people who committed no wrongs but yet have BEEN WRONGED by the US government in their attempt to make Dotcom suffer.

No amount of stopping stupid bootleg mp3s of Beyonce or 50 cent etc., are worth throwing due process under the bus. But apparently in the US, if you are rich enough and pissed off enough, you can get your DOJ cronies to do EXACTLY that.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Frankly, if you can't utterly destroy someone like Kim Dotcom, then the copyright system is worthless because it is impossible to actually enforce your copyright. The guy is a criminal. The evidence against him is overwhelming in the forms of emails and internal communications, as well as their internal search engine and his revenue stream. Other companies knew he was being shady. The list goes on.

If you can't convict him, then you're just screwed.

No, frankly the US DOJ SHOULDN'T be able to CONVICT him because they are trying to TRY him in the US for things he did in New Zealand!!!!! If they want him so bad, use NZ law to get him. The US is NOT the world's policeman (and shouldn't be given how absolute f*cking corrupt they are - and yes, I AM AN AMERICAN).

Frankly, if you can't utterly destroy someone like Kim Dotcom, then the copyright system is worthless because it is impossible to actually enforce your copyright. The guy is a criminal. The evidence against him is overwhelming in the forms of emails and internal communications, as well as their internal search engine and his revenue stream. Other companies knew he was being shady. The list goes on.

If you can't convict him, then you're just screwed.

This is the fundamental problem with copyright in the modern world: Any system that could actually enforce it effectively would need to be so draconian that the collateral damage to freedom, privacy, and the ability to archive and preserve our culture would outweigh any benefit of it. Any system that doesn't cause this collateral damage will never effectively enforce copyright, because if you have the freedom to archive and privately communicate with others, copyright enforcement becomes ineffective.

We currently have a system that is mostly ineffective at stopping piracy, and occasionally creates huge legal hassles for a few people (sometimes people making big money, like Dotcom, and sometimes from individual file sharers without many resources).

It seems to me that we have essentially three possible outcomes:1) Continue the status quo of ineffective copyright enforcement with occasional punishment2) Become a draconian police state where information is tightly controlled, everything is locked down with DRM, and all communications are monitored.3) Look for alternative ways of monetizing creativity that don't rely so heavily on controlling the distribution of copies.

Personally, I'm strongly in favor of #3. There are various methods that people have already tried with varying degrees of success, but comparatively little effort has been put into improving the effectiveness of these techniques, compared to the efforts that have been put into effective marketing under the traditional copyright-based "selling copies" business model.

Would a shift in funding methods change the market and affect what types of works are profitable or not? Certainly. This was the case when society made the transition to a predominantly copyright-based system (from the previous system of patronage by wealthy individuals and institutions) as well. Society changes. Technology changes. The copyright-based system was actually pretty good in a media world based on the printing press, but if we need to violate our rights of due process and private communication to prop it up, then it's pretty clearly flawed in an Internet based world.

But the government shot back with a brief suggesting that Goodwin wasn't exactly "innocent," since he'd also uploaded allegedly pirated music files to his account.

Then why don't they restore his files and subsequently sue him for copyright infringement?

Supposedly that could cost tens of thousands of dollars and require weeks of engineering work. I don't buy their "allegedly" pirated music claim... how could they possibly know that?

You can't just turn one server on, you have to turn all of them on and connect them all properly before you can even find out where the guys files are. And turning on a massive cluster of servers, with a completely custom software setup is a challenge when the guys who know how it works lost their job months ago.

Even just shipping all of the servers from their current storage location into a dataccenter that has enough power and ethernet ports would be expensive...

Basically it would be cheaper and easier to just hand the guy a few hundred thousand bucks.

when a server with regularly high io for lLONG periods of time gets shutdown, sometimes the disk won't spun back up if allowed to go cold. Top it off with the fact that an improperly shutdown server might have a borked file system requiring work to fix. There are very real possibilities that there were those sorts of problems on top of those you mention. I wouldn't be surprised if the govt never even looked at his files and just made something up given how bad everything that's trickled out about the govt's behavior on the whole megaupload mess from the start

What is even worse about this case is whether the US has any legal standing to bring charges. If there were crimes committed as alleged they did not occur in the US but in New Zealand where Dotcom lives. Thus only New Zealand can charge him and only if he broke New Zealand laws. US laws are irrelevant in this case. The US DOJ whole case is not based on where the alleged crimes took place but on the physical location of some servers which were leased by Megaupload. This theory has if held valid has some very troubling implications for everyone because where the server is located could make you a criminal in another country when you did not commit a crime in your own. I have no idea where the Ars' servers are. And under the outlined theory one could be committing a crime in France (random location) while posting a comment from Brazil without ever stepping foot on any French soil in your entire life. You can substitute any two countries but the point is the same.

This is pure nonsense. The crimes in question occurred against American companies, via hardware on American soil, funnelling money through American companies, deriving money from companies based in America, receiving payments from American pirates.

So yes, the US does, in fact, have jurisdiction. New Zealand could say "Hey we want to prosecute him here", but they're choosing to let the US take him off their hands.

US laws are, in fact, entirely relevant in this case, as anyone who has any understanding of international law knows. Countries have reciprocal treaties with one another to respect one another's IP and to extradite criminals amongst themselves.

There are no "troubling implications" here - this is how it works. If you ship a bomb to another country, then guess what? Even if you never set foot in that country, you committed a crime there. If you organize a terrorist attack against another country, guess what? Even though you never set foot there, you still committed a crime in that country. The list goes on. This is a well established point of international law. Even if you never set foot in another country, it is very possible for you to be involved in or commit a crime there.

If you can't cope with this, well, too bad for you. The same principle allowing Dotcom to be prosecuted here are the laws that make Osama Bin Laden culpable for launching terrorist attacks in other countries, or some money launderer in Bermuda culpable for hiding money from drug cartels.

The only other alternative is to have mercenaries paid by people in other countries to go to those countries and kidnap or garrote people there. Do you want that? Because I seem to recall people not liking the US doing drone strikes on terrorists in other countries. If you don't support the US doing that, then you've got to be supportive of the idea of international justice.

Quote:

There was an eminent English jurist who said (paraphrasing) that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person is convicted. It seems the US DOJ tactics are not about justice but about getting a scalp.

Dotcom is clearly and obviously guilty. There's zero doubt.

Quote:

Dotcom's possible guilt is not as important as the rule of law and that he and co-defendants get a fair trail in the proper venue. This is what is bothersome to me about the whole affair is it smells like a kangaroo court with elements of a lynching by the US DOJ. If the US DOJ can trample the rights of someone like Dotcom who has money with apparent impunity what about the rest of us who lack the resources who live the US?

You would have to be deeply locked into Dotcom's propaganda machine to believe he is getting an unfair trial. The US caught him fair and square. If anything, it is unfair in his favor, as he is already known to not be above bribery.

Dotcom is scum. There is no kangaroo court; the emails are publicly available. If you think Dotcom is innocent, then you are either hugely ignorant, or utterly incapable of rational thought. Or possibly simply someone trying to spread propaganda on his behalf, knowing full well he is guilty. Its just that simple.

Quote:

In Western law you are innocent until proven guilty. Your comment about guilty is clearly despicable because you have judged him guilty and not allowed him any possibility of defending himself.

Only a complete piece of human garbage would say something like this.

I have the right to free speech. I have seen the evidence against him. There is no defense. Emails. Files. Numerous, numerous examples of pirated files on his servers. His interactions with pirates, paying them for uploading illegal content. Hiding content. Setting up the servers so that it is difficult for those seeking to enforce copyright to find the files, but simple for him to find the files, proving knowledge and showing he has a system whose only purpose was internal checks on files - internal checks of files he and his fellows knew were pirated.

I can call him guilty all I want. People are allowed to say that OJ killed his wife even though he was found innocent in a court of law. If you don't uphold my right to freedom of speech, then you are a piece of human garbage and you are the enemy of the people of the United States.

Quote:

I have no idea if Dotcom is guilty and I am content to let proper judicial proceedings provide the answer; proceedings that follow due process and the rule of law. My emphasis on the rule of law and due process. My opinion and your opinion about his guilt or innocence are not important. Note the burden of proof in a US criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; a standard I have no idea if the US DOJ can meet.

He is getting due process. The idea that he isn't is a brazen lie spread by Dotcom to garner false sympathy.

Quote:

Truthfully I do not care if Dotcom is guilty or innocent. What I care about is the appearance of an out of control US DOJ and the possibility of serious, maybe criminal, misconduct within.

So you're concerned because a convicted criminal (a convicted criminal!) who has overwhelming evidence against him is claiming that he is magically not getting due process, and is doing his best to spread misinformation and propaganda around the internet...

Well, let's be clear here. There is absolutely no evidence of an "out of control" DoJ. There is no evidence of criminal misconduct within.

There is very clear evidence of Dotcom committing crimes. Why don't you care if he is guilty? Don't you care about justice?

No, you clearly do not. You clearly have an agenda.

Neep33 wrote:

No, the human garbage are the DOJ scumbags who decided to ignore due process, ignore the fact that US law is NOT applicable in NZ and seized a bunch of innocent people's files with no way for them to recover them, and did all this because some rich bleepards at the MPAA and RIAA and their corrupt and paid for Senators and Representatives told them to.

None of this is true; this is all what is known as "Dotcom propaganda".

1) US law is applicable against crimes committed in the US. If you hack into the CIA's servers from China, you are, in fact, committing a crime in the US AND in China. If you organize a hit on people in the US, you are breaking the law in the US. If you are distributing illegal files in the US, you are committing a crime in the US. This is a basic principle of international law.

2) The US government has zero obligation to you. If you do business with people performing illegal activities, and the US government shuts them down, you are SOL. If you have a contract with a company which is dumping poison into rivers, and gets shut down for it, the US government is not on the line for producing whatever it is that that company was supposed to produce for you. The party who wronged you is the company which had the agreement with you. It is NOT the US government's problem, nor should it be, that you showed poor judgement. The party who wronged you is Kim Dotcom, not the US government.

3) Many of those people were not innocent anyway. See also: retard who sued who had uploaded illegal content.

4) They did it because Dotcom violated the law in a major way. The fact that you don't like the MPAA and RIAA does not mean that people are or should be free to commit crimes against them. And indeed, it appears that the DOJ started this action on their own. Even if they did not, it is not wrong for someone who has had a crime committed against them to report it to the cops, and expect that they take action against the party who wronged them, nor is it wrong for them to ask their congressmen for help if they feel that the cops are blowing them off. There is nothing inappropriate here, save that you think that they should have no right for redress. They have the same rights as anyone else in this country.

Quote:

I have no real sympathy for Dotcom, but I DO have sympathy for the people who committed no wrongs but yet have BEEN WRONGED by the US government in their attempt to make Dotcom suffer.

The people who lost access to their files were not wronged by the US government. That is classic propaganda by Dotcom.

If they were wronged by anyone, they were wronged by Dotcom and Megaupload. They uploaded their files there and expected them to be there. They weren't. But the truth is that Megaupload's TOS said that the files could go away.

The DOJ is NOT responsible for this. Dotcom was running an illegal business. He got shut down. It is not the DOJ's fault that you entrusted a criminal with your money; if you get defrauded by someone running a pyramid scheme, the government doesn't give you money, you have to sue the person to stole from you. Likewise here.

Quote:

No amount of stopping stupid bootleg mp3s of Beyonce or 50 cent etc., are worth throwing due process under the bus. But apparently in the US, if you are rich enough and pissed off enough, you can get your DOJ cronies to do EXACTLY that.

There is no violation of due process. If you have sufficient evidence arrayed against you of ongoing illegal activity, then your assets can be seized and your money frozen to prevent you from continuing on in your illegal operations while you are tried. There is simply no other way for the system to work. You can appeal to get your assets unfrozen. You can fight in court to prove your innocence. But if you are part of a criminal enterprise, your business WILL get shut down while you fight in court.

Quote:

No, frankly the US DOJ SHOULDN'T be able to CONVICT him because they are trying to TRY him in the US for things he did in New Zealand!!!!! If they want him so bad, use NZ law to get him. The US is NOT the world's policeman (and shouldn't be given how absolute f*cking corrupt they are - and yes, I AM AN AMERICAN).

They aren't trying to convict him for crimes he committed in New Zealand - they're trying to convict him for crimes he committed in the United States. His physical location is utterly irrelevant. If you launch a missile at the US from Mexico, you are in fact guilty of committing a crime in the US, even though you never physically set foot in the US. If you try to hack into the CIA from the UK, you have committed a crime in the US, even though your physical body was located in the UK at the time of the attack. This is well established law.

People who claim otherwise are again falling prey to Dotcom propaganda.

First in Judeo-Christian ethics one should with hold judgment until all the facts are in "Do not judge lest ye be judged" is the mantra. You are judging Dotcom's as guilty. Do wish others to do the same to you?

I offer no opinion about guilt or innocence and am completely content to let proper due process and rule of law occur. In fact whether he is guilty or innocent has minimal effect on my life and lives of many others. In fact my concern is the whether the US DOJ is obeying the law. Various reports from NZ indicate that the US DOJ has not been obeying the law or NZ court rulings.

The antics of the US DOJ are the only reason I ever heard of Kim Dotcom or Megaupload. And I have not even visited the new Mega site.

Accusing people of being shills for Dotcom because they question the tactics of the US DOJ and their legality is idiotic. Dotcom assumed guilty by you and possible US DOJ unethical behavior are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that both are true but which is worse Dotcom's possible guilt or possible US DOJ misconduct. My vote is possible US DOJ misconduct is fair worse a problem than Dotcom's possible guilt. An out-of-control DOJ has the potential to ruin innocent people.

People who argue about how he was wronged by the law are universally retards who are buying into Dotcom's propaganda. He has attempted to bribe politicians, goodness knows if he has bribed other people, he has fought his extradition, he has enlisted expensive legal help, he has worked hard to spread propaganda, he has had the unwavering support of the pro-piracy community and a number of retard websites like Ars whose goal is to throw red meat to their masses like Fox News does to people who hate liberals... the list goes on.

Seriously, the guy is clearly guilty of criminal copyright infringement. He was clearly and deliberately building a business out of piracy. He knew he was doing it, he had specific knowledge of pirated content, he paid pirates to upload pirated content...

Frankly, if you can't utterly destroy someone like Kim Dotcom, then the copyright system is worthless because it is impossible to actually enforce your copyright. The guy is a criminal. The evidence against him is overwhelming in the forms of emails and internal communications, as well as their internal search engine and his revenue stream. Other companies knew he was being shady. The list goes on.

If you can't convict him, then you're just screwed.

nobody is saying that he might not be squeaky clean, just that the trials need to come BEFORE destroying his company & seizing customer data while guys with guns and civilian clothes drop from helicopters in the middle of the night. At request of the US gov with what's been looking like more and more shaky/fishy goings on leading up to there.

People who argue about how he was wronged by the law are universally retards who are buying into Dotcom's propaganda. He has attempted to bribe politicians, goodness knows if he has bribed other people, he has fought his extradition, he has enlisted expensive legal help, he has worked hard to spread propaganda, he has had the unwavering support of the pro-piracy community and a number of retard websites like Ars whose goal is to throw red meat to their masses like Fox News does to people who hate liberals... the list goes on.

Seriously, the guy is clearly guilty of criminal copyright infringement. He was clearly and deliberately building a business out of piracy. He knew he was doing it, he had specific knowledge of pirated content, he paid pirates to upload pirated content...

Frankly, if you can't utterly destroy someone like Kim Dotcom, then the copyright system is worthless because it is impossible to actually enforce your copyright. The guy is a criminal. The evidence against him is overwhelming in the forms of emails and internal communications, as well as their internal search engine and his revenue stream. Other companies knew he was being shady. The list goes on.

If you can't convict him, then you're just screwed.

Dotcom tried to bribe a politician? Oh, the horror! If that is so abhorrent to you then I am sure you would have no problems convicting all the entertainment industry and RIAA/MPAA executives that have bribed politicians and officials with campaign contributions and cushy jobs? You know, like the guy who sneaked in the work-for-hire amendment into a completely unrelated Satellite Home Viewer Act in '99 and then subsequently received a nice job from RIAA (completele non-reciprocally, I am sure)? Fortunately the amendment was later repealed.

Or, the recording executives who got caught orchestrating a pricing cartel in California? Or, the people involved in the Ye Olde Payola Scandal? Or about a dozen more that I am too lazy to search for at the moment, but I know are there?

So, tell me, oh Titanium Dragon, our Paragon of Justice, our voice of conscience and reason, where is your moral outrage for those? Why aren't you braying for blood at people like them? Could it be, perhaps, that you are, in fact, a sanctimonious and hypocritical douche?